John the Revelator, Part 3—Did He ever Die?

According to Biblical tradition, it is suggested that John the beloved apostle (i.e., Revelator) never died. Instead, he was to remain on earth until the Savior was to come again. The Lord spoke of this to his chosen disciples (i.e., apostles):

But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God. (Luke 9:27.)

While this is not specific to John, Mark also reported this saying but added more substance to what Luke reported:

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power (Mark 9:1.)

Of course, the kingdom of God had already come in the person of Jesus Christ and he certainly demonstrated power. But he did not come in power. Quite the contrary. He came as a little suckling child . . . in a lowly manger. That’s about as humble an entrance as one could imagine.

However, Jesus’ coming in power would not come until a much later date. This is verified when the Lord spoke to his apostles of his second coming:

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matt. 16:27-28.)

However, the same problem exists in all three verses by the thee different authors and that is the use of the word “some.” “Some” would imply there would be more than one amongst his audience who would not taste of death.

The other problem here is that all the apostles’ deaths are accounted for—all except for John. Of course, both problems would be overcome were there more than the twelve apostles present. But a previous, more intimate conversation earlier in Matthew 16, would indicate Jesus was alone with his chosen twelve.

On the other hand, Mark 8:34 indicates that other people were present during this major pronouncement:

And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

There is no indication between this verse and Mark 9:1 that Jesus had separated his disciples from the crowd. However, the passage in Luke, while reporting on the same conversation as in Matthew 16, was very clear that Jesus had separated the twelve and was speaking to them privately.

And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am? (Luke 9:18.)

So, when it comes right down to it, we’re left with the same conundrum of the usage of the word “some” in this great, if not shocking, pronouncement regarding the prolonging of death for “some.”

According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Greek#5100), the word for “some” in all three of these instances is tis. Strictly speaking, tis means “some or any person or object.”

Therefore, we could easily say that ”some”, in these three instances, means “some person standing here shall not taste of death until . . .”

The translators of the King James Version of the Bible applied any number of different meanings to tis in various places, including, but not limited to, “somebody” and “something.” Therefore, it is my conclusion, for better or for worse, that tis in these three instances, is referring to “some person” rather than “some”, as in many.

On the other hand, we have the problem of the use of “they” in verse 28, referring back to the use of “some” previously. There could be several reasons for this:

Jesus never did say either “some” or “they”; and the translators just took some liberty.

The translators were merely matching “they” with their interpretation of tis as “some”.

There really was more than one person who was not to taste of death until Christ was to come in power.

Regarding option 3, Luke 9:18 would seem to eliminate that prospect. So, we’re left with either option 1 or 2 to consider.

Nevertheless, regardless of what the authors meant, it was up to impetuous Peter to drag a little more information out of Jesus regarding this not-tasting-of-death business.

It seems obvious that something was different about John, or Peter wouldn’t have bothered to ask what he did. And here we find the best evidence yet that it was John who would not taste of death:

Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
This is the disciple [meaning himself; i.e., John] which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. (John 21:20-24.)

The Greek word for “tarry” is mĕnō, meaning “to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy” (Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible). mĕnō has been translated variously as “abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand” (ibid.)—all meaning pretty much the same thing.

Thus we can see that Jesus had in mind that John, in some state of being, would be present, presumably on earth, until such time he would return in glory. And this is not without precedent.

26 Responses

I came across your site as part of my research around Eusibius’s writings “History of Church” from the 2nd/rd century and got here through writing by Papius !!

I was researching early doctrine on the Millennium when your site came up.

Like others in this thread I am LDS but down under in Australia and wont comment on the many topics covered other than to firstly to say that Gordon is correct on his quotes – well done and

I would like to add below a list of many of the NT scriptures I compiled together recently for some of our missionaries to discuss with investigators explaining the God Head has to be three separate personages of – God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Its not intelligibly possible to read all the scriptures from the NT and claim they are one essence or even one person and commend your approach to look at the whole picture and not isolated bits of the scripture.

I hope this list is useful for anyone wishing to read them as a subject matter.

Also with regards to the writer on this thread who ‘fasted and prayed’ for answers from our Heavenly Father – I have no doubt what so ever that is the right course when we seek truth.

We can read the words of man as much as we want – but there is only one source of truth – all truth, and the Savior taught extensively that fasting with prayer is essential for personal understanding of the truth. Only the Holy Ghost can testify completely to our souls and when he does there is no lingering doubt of it as we are left with a sureness that imprints itself on our souls like no other thing.

Interestingly on your comments on the conference at Nicaea, I have a book from a modern well recognized Catholic writer in the Catholic Church Gerard Noel “The Anatomy of the Catholic Church”, 2 vols, which is an appeal and expose to Catholics at large that the church has long gone astray and must at all costs re find the truths from first roots.

He explains in detail the make up and content of the Nicaea conference pointing out how the Emperor (not yet Christian) in finding nothing but argument and dissension and schism between the then leaders of the church on all matters doctrine (the point of the conference being called was for them provide Constantine with a clear understanding of christian doctrine) – eventually gave up on them, called an end to the whole debacle and decided to just try and make some sense of all the confusion and as best he could – set down the catholic creed.

Very interesting reading and Noel goes on to demonstrate where, how and why many of Christs doctrines floundered on the way through those first 200 years. (we call it the “apostasy’). I don’t think there is any doubt of it and of course the leaders of the ‘Reformation’ starting with Luther (who was a catholic priest) gave up trying to get the church to mend its ways – left to try and re find the truth.

In the end – given there was an apostasy, then a reformation, which all led to 1000’s of different sects (the leaders of which in the main were God fearing souls searching for the truth now lost), the question is –

would God leave the world in this state before the Second coming – or – would he ‘restore’ the truths in ‘preparation’ for the second coming so that ‘order’ , all knowledge and most importantly the Ordinances of Salvation he gave to the original twelve were once again found on the earth – such as baptism of the dead amongst many others lost? Only ‘personal’ fasting and prayer can supply that answer as only he can tell us.

Greg, thank you for your extensive comments. Unfortunately, they cut off just after “Here is the list ::>-“. I clicked on “More” and was given the options of “Trash” and “Spam”, so I was unable to peruse you list. Nevertheless, I thank you for taking the time to list them.

I DO take the Bible as a whole and not just partake of bits and pieces of it to try and make arguments. I try and get as many sources as I can before I start writing, both from the Old and New Testaments, sometimes from pseudogryphia (sp?). In that, I don’t reckon I’m any different than you, picking and choosing scripture in order to prove a particular point.

It’s interesting you should mention baptism for the dead. Using my trusty Strong’s Concordance of the Bible, I noticed that there was only one verse in the entire Bible referring to this obviously unusual practice.

The point beings, sometimes you have to use just one verse in order to at least bring attention to a particular theme. In this particular case, it would be hard to build a ship using just one plank, but, still, the plank is there. And like the old adage, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

To effectively show that such a practice existed in the early days of the church, one would have to search outside the church for original sources to support such a claim, such as from the pseudogryphia (sp?). Should I need them, I can go to them, as I have a number of their published accounts.

Whenever I approach a subject, using Strong’s, as it references every word in the Bible, I try and find as many references as possible. Then, I will make conclusions based on those scriptures. If there are diverging ideas on any particular subject, I try and present those views as sensibly as possible.

Of course, in my own study of the scriptures, I wind up with opinions of my own regarding any particular subject, and, so, like anyone else trying to shed light on a subject, I start out with an opinion that I hope will eventually shed some of that light.

On those subjects that cannot fully come to fruition to support my ideas, those subjects are dropped and never see the light of day, so those you will never see. Admittedly, those situations are far and few between.

I hope this clears up any misconceptions you might have toward my work, which I view as a light shed in dark places, regarding some of the more mysterious or esoteric portions of the Bible.

Thank you again for commenting. I appreciate your time and diligence in putting them forth, and I appreciate your kind words and for taking the time to read these things.

Thank you for your work here in exploring the Bible. I am an Institute teacher for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This year we are studying the revelations of Joseph Smith and I’ve been pondering one in particular where Joseph asked God about the whereabouts of John. The answer is in line with some of your thoughts. I’m happy to report that MANY of your reasonings (Heavenly Mother, the fall . . .) are in line with LDS beliefs and have added insight to my studies. Thanks! I’ll be following your writings and believe many of them are inspired.

Thank you, Lauren, I appreciate your comments, especially your comment about your believing that MANY of my writings are inspired.🙂 I’d be curious about which of my writings you don’t consider inspired.🙂

Apparently, I’ll have to do some more digging around. I probably should anyway, as I haven’t been very diligent in updating my posts.

Actually, some day I’d like to arrange theses posts all into book form so that they are more easily followed, but I just haven’t found time to do so yet. The book would be free, of course, as Jesus said something about serving God and Mammon.

In my view, if a person receives a wage/earnings/royalties/etc. for preaching the gospel, he/she is serving Mammon. I think Paul said something about the gospel being free, but I could be wrong on that. However, it does strike me as sounding familiar.

I don’t know that I’m so much preaching the gospel, but I am at least throwing Biblical teachings to the wall while hoping that some of it sticks. If I am wrong on any point, I am more than willing to discuss the matter.

Of course, God has not called me to write these things, so far as I know, so I may be off on the wrong foot to start with But I like to think that I am at least planting seeds that there is more to the gospel than meets the eye.

There is more to the gospel than saying, “I’ve been saved,” or “I’m a born-again Christian,” whatever that is, or “We’re the only true church,” which many churches say, or “It doesn’t matter which church you belong to,” or no church, for that matter.

So I write for the fun of writing with the hope that some few might find some pleasure here. Thank you again.

I love your methods of reasoning in the Bible. It seems that many churches pick and choose their favorite bits and build their doctrine on those rather than being willing to open themselves up to new understanding from the WHOLE text. You asked what points I don’t agree with. well, you happen to bring one up right in your reply. You said that you disagree with the notion of ONE true church. Be patient with me as I attempt to hash some of this out.

It seems that one of Christ’s biggest challenges was fighting tradition. Christ brought change, the end of animal sacrifice as well as a higher law described in the beatitudes. However, many pharisees refused to acknowledge Him because he didn’t fit the traditional profile (a King of the Jews) and didn’t follow their traditions. An important aspect of Christ’s ministry was correcting doctrines and establishing His Church with the 12 to lead it when he departed.

Then after Christ’s assention, Paul’s major struggle was continued correction and preventing dissension. It is interesting to me that in Acts 19 Paul re-baptized a group of people, making sure they were baptized properly in the name of Jesus Christ. Further, It’s clear in Ephesian’s 4 that there was to be one church acting as a body with the resurrected Christ at the head. I believe there was one right church then and should be one right church now. Not many modes of baptism . . . but one.

But of course, how on earth can we reconcile one true church with Acts 10:34 where Peter is taught that God is no respecter of persons? How can God love all his children and yet have only a localized church?

One possibility lies in 1 Peter 3:18 and 1 Peter 4:6 where it is revealed that Christ preached to spirits who were dead and Peter seems to think baptism could save them? Is it crazy to think that we could perform baptisms for the dead? Paul doesn’t seem to think so as he offers without much explanation, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” (1 Cor 15:29).

Anyway, my point is that in your study of the Bible it might be interesting to compile doctrines that Christ’s true church might do or believe. I once sat next to a Christian man who asked me a sincere question he had been pondering, “When Christ comes again in Glory, which church do you think he will go to?” To my mind, it’s got to be one that provides the opportunity for salvation to all of God’s children, those who are living as well as those who are dead.

I would love to hear your remarks sometime about the possibility of there being one true church and yet God being no respecter of persons.

Thank you, Lauren, for your comments. When I asked you which of my writings you thought were uninspired, I was referring to those of my blog, not my comments to you.🙂

I appreciate your thoughts and have come across these verses you referenced in my studies and have found them interesting.

In answer to your query about putting something together regarding the NT church, I have actually thought of researching this very issue. I think it could take a book to really do it justice.

Some of the things I’ve already discussed could be written much lengthier as well. It’s hard in this forum, if you will, to put something together in a clipped format, while leaving out much supporting ideas due to space constraints.

I’m not so much interested in there being one true church while God being no respector of persons as I am in really investigating what the NT church was really about.

I’m already convinced that the original church was lost. When John received his Revelation in/or about 96 AD, according to most estimates, there were only seven churches remaining. If there were more, why weren’t they named?

This is one of the issues I want to look into as well. If you wish to correspond privately, you may do so, as it’s easier than creating these huge comments. You may reach me at cris47@windstream.net

“I am afraid to say that if you mentioned this to your “pastor or anyone in high ranking”, you’d get the same reception Jesus got from the pastors of the day (scribes, the keepers of the law) and the high-ranking religious folk called Pharisees and Sadducees”

I really agree with that statement. Isaiah speaks of the learned man that cannot read the sealed book. Wonderful article. I am of the LDS persuasion and the need of a physical body to confer the keys of the kingdom, as Christ did to Peter, would be needed to confer keys if there was to be any kind of restoration of the Apostolic Authority that originates from Christ.

Sorry this has taken me so long to get back with you, as I’ve been having difficulty answering comments. I’ve solved that problem now, and I thank you for your comments.

Actually, I tried a couple of times to answer your comment, but apparently they didn’t take.

Regarding your comment, this isn’t a subject I’ve considered at this point. I’m not so sure about the physical body issue, as when God appeared to Moses as a flaming fire, not a physical presence, I’m sure He must have conferred something on Moses, but even if He didn’t, he was still called of God as was Aaron.

I have other subjects I wish to tackle before I could ever get around to that one. Even then, I’m not sure how I would handle it.

Feel free to explore the Table of Contents for the rest of my blog. You might find something of interest to you there. 🙂

I my name is Ann and now I know for sure, that I am not crazy. About 5 years ago I was in intense fasting and prayer and God reveal to me that John the revelatory is the prophet that is going to be killed and left in the street for days. I read for sure that Elijah will come back, but John? I am still shocked, you’re page as open my eyes once again to the fact, that it is quiet possible that John is alive walking this earth all this time. When this was reveild to me, I only mention it to my husband, I felt foolish to ask my pastor or anyone in high ranking. I even feel kinda stupid right now, but I am so sure that was wath was revealed to me. I’ve been afraid to mentioned it to any one, can you shed some more light on John and Elijah please.

Thank you, Ann, for taking the time to respond and for sharing your personal experience. I’m sending this by email because I’m not sure that my reply wound up in my blog, as I couldn’t find it. I tried three separate times to post my reply and it never showed up. So, here we are.

That’s an interesting receiving you have had. In all my studies regarding the TWO prophets whose bodies will lie in the streets of Jerusalem for 3½ days, I had never considered John the Revelator.

I not only believe that John is walking the earth today, but I also believe, but can’t prove, that he is walking among the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel, who are still together (and are separate from scattered Israel), preparing them for their return as a group, as prophesied in the Old Testament.

I am afraid to say that if you mentioned this to your “pastor or anyone in high ranking”, you’d get the same reception Jesus got from the pastors of the day (scribes, the keepers of the law) and the high-ranking religious folk called Pharisees and Sadducees.

I cannot dispute something you have received as a direct result of your fasting and prayer so I won’t. That is certainly one option, one I hadn’t considered.

As regarding Elijah, we know that he was carried away into heaven in a whirlwind, not the chariot of fire, as so many teach.

“And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire; and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” (2 Kings 2:11.)

The chariot and horses of fire were sent to distract Elisha from seeing Elijah be carried away into heaven, but Elisha was true and kept his eyes focused on Elijah and was rewarded with Elijah’s mantle falling to him as promised.

By this we know that Elijah did not taste of death, but he was, like John the Revelator, translated that he might not taste of death, presumably, like John, until the second coming of Christ.

Whether Elijah is the second of the two prophets whose bodies will lie in the streets of Jerusalem, which I assume you are insinuating, I cannot say. The only thing I am sure of is that these two men will be called and chosen prophets of God, the same as they were called and chosen in the Old and New Testaments.

Where will these prophets come from? I am 100% sure they will not come from divided Christianity which so many professing Christians call “The Church.” A church divided against itself shall surely fall. Is that not what Jesus taught?

“And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.” (Matthew 12:25.)

And I add, “The Church,” for the church is part of the kingdom of God, and can the kingdom of God be divided against itself? I hardly think so.

And is not Christianity divided against itself with its hundreds, if not thousands, of separate denominations and sects? How, then, shall they stand?

So, no, I do not believe these two prophets, whoever they may be, will come from divided Christianity.

I hope this helps. Feel free to continue this conversation if it so appeals to you. Thanks again for taking the time to comment.

My developer is trying to persuade me to move to .
net from PHP. I have always disliked the idea because of the expenses.
But he’s tryiong none the less. I’ve been using Movable-type on a number of websites for
about a year and am worried about switching to another platform.
I have heard excellent things about blogengine.

net. Is there a way I can transfer all my wordpress content into it?
Any help would be really appreciated!

Cris,
Thank you again for letting me invade your website. My actual area of “expertise,” is within the realm of oriental religions. It is of some interest to me that most of the great world religions have undergone major alterations. Translation of texts, letters, canon, etc is always a major issue. Case in point. . . In Chinese culture the emperor had those he favored to his left. Thus, it is a left handed authority base. To translate the Bible, which is a right handed authority base (those found on the right hand of God were in favor), into Chinese, does one reverse the convention, or leave it as stated in the Bible and hope that folk will pick up on the fact? If a reader did not know or take the time to ferret out the issue, they could end up in an awkward position.

I really appreciate your narratives with the breakdown of words and expressions. I do not know of too many people who take the time to do this. It is critical to truly understanding what is trying to be communicated!

You have probably guessed that I am an older fellow. I grew up with old black and white westerns on TV. It was fun to see old time preachers depicted with their long boney fingers stretched out toward the congregation and the other hand pounding on the pulpit, with the proclamation, “Fear God, or you will be smitten!”

As one reads the Hebrew text, there are two distinctly different words used which were translated into English as the word fear. One form of the word, in context, could be associated with fear, as that experienced when one goes into battle. The fear word associated with fearing God, appears to have an entirely different context (which I trust would have been understood in the framework of their culture), and would probably be better presented with the meaning that one should fear doing something that would offend or displease God. (Here again, I have notes on this but don’t have a clue as to which box to even look for it)

To fear God, in this context, would be to love and revere Him so much that one would shrink at the thought of doing something that would offend Him. This makes more sense in doing things for the right reasons, which seems to have been a lesson I have had difficulty with as I have been in the refining process.

I am curious as to whether or not you have a set procedure for studying a particular topic. I have noticed in responses to readers that you are most respectful and provide a wide berth and respect for their opinions and input. Me Included. . . I can only wonder what elements you feel I am off base, but trust you are too much of a gentleman to say anything that would hurt my feelings.

As to your being “off-base”, I have not seen it. Pretty much you have been spot on. I was quoting your comments toward me, if that’s what you were referring to, assuming you have read my response to your comments on part 1 of the Mother in Heaven article. Or I’m just totally confused. That happens.

As far as changing the “right hand” to the “left hand” in the Chinese, given the cultural meme (if that’s the right word), I’d change it to the “left hand of God” unless you were able to make them understand why the Westerners use the “right hand” instead of the “left hand”. I’m guessing they’re intelligent enough to make the connection were they informed. But with religion, who knows?

As far as any particular set procedure I go through when discussing a particular project, I do go through a few routines.

First, I look for as many references to a given topic in the Bible as I can, then read them and see if they apply. I don’t like taking things out of context, which is a thing many people do.

I will then check out the various translations and commentaries that I can find on the web to get different takes. Some translations are more in line with how I view a particular verse or verses than others, as are some commentaries. Sometimes I will present both sides of a matter, sometimes not, depending on my current mood.🙂

I will sometimes, but not always, look up the original Greek or Hebrew/Chaldee if I think it might help in understanding more clearly a particular verse or set of verses. Sometimes a verse just doesn’t make any sense as written.

One thing I do on occasion is to remember that in the original Biblical manuscripts, there was no punctuation. All punctuation was added by the translators, and sometimes they were way off. I will sometimes correct those punctuation errors.

A case in point is Ephesians 4:11, which reads in the KJV: “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers”.

If you take out the commas, it makes a ton more sense than one bunch gets only apostles, and other bunch only prophets, and so forth. That doesn’t make any sense at all.

So, if I were to use that verse, I would eliminate those commas. I am not one who believes in the infallibility of the Bible and the way it was translated. The translators were only human; they were not prophets and did not, in my opinion, have the same Spirit as those who originally wrote the scriptures.

Then I just write, write, write, edit, edit, edit.

Sometimes I will toss out entire sections if they don’t feel right. I try at all times to get into the spirit of the scriptures as much as possible, trying to imagine what the writers’ original intents are.

Sometimes word-by-word translations leave a lot to be desired in ferreting out the meaning of a scripture. One has to take into consideration of the message of the entire Bible, not just a particular verse or set of verses, or else you might see contradictions from one scripture to another. I’ve seen many.

I do try and be respectful of all who take the time to comment on my writings. The last thing I want this blog to turn into is a flame war. That’s not only unpleasant but it is unscriptural.

Flame war over scriptures? That’s undoubtedly what has led to the long-standing war between Great Britain and Ireland. God is not in that war, nor is he in any flame war.

Cris,
I have a little more time today and wanted to comment further on your approach for ferreting out hidden mysteries. I trust that my response here will offend some of your readers, but hopefully not you.

As you have acknowledged, focus on one particular verse or even a few select verses can derail our ability to get to the truth. I believe that without the truth we are limited in our ability to understand our relationship to/with God. I noticed that a previous contributer had expressed his or her feelings that there was and is a Trinity. I would beg them to look at some history and alternative meanings for some of the verses they would probably quote in support of their position that there is a Trinity.

When Christ was asked the question as to what the Father looked like, He responded that if an individual had seen Him, he had seen the Father. Taking this verse alone, that leaves two distinct possibilities. 1) Christ and the Father are one and the same, or 2) Christ and the Father look so much alike that if one saw them they might think that they are looking at the same person. Based on human genetics, this is not far fetched. I have seen fathers and sons and mothers and daughters who could pass for twins (even with the age differential).

However, lets not stop here. There are other verses which specifically state that the Father and the Son are one. John 10:30 serves as an example. And John 14:10, if one reads only that verse can be taken the same way.

If one wishes to take this to the absurd, John 14:20 tells us that we are part of God, so according to this verse alone we are techinically part of God. To make certain there is no confusion here, I am being totally facetious. From a physical standpoint we are totally separate, but are encouraged to be joined from what I trust is a spiritual binding.

I have never counted the number of scriptures where Christ refers to His Father, or that the voice of the Father was heard, but there have to be over 50. I have no idea why those who were at the Counsel of Nicea ultimately settled on the concept of the Trinity. I do know that it was hotly debated for several months and that one debater slapped another in the face.

From the standpoint of simplicity, it makes more sense that Christ was the Only Begotten of God the Father and our Goddess Mother. That would have made Him the First spiritual born of God, whom Christ acknowledged in the Temple at age 12 (when He was about His Father’s business), to whom he prayed frequently, to whom He called out to when He was on the Cross, etc. etc. etc. I believe that Stephen had a vision where he saw God the Father and Jesus standing at His right. Apparently he shared that information with the wrong folk and as a result they stoned him to death. Acts 7:55

Christ would have to be one with his Father in purpose, in abounding love, and has admonished us to become one with Him and His (our) Father. You will note that I have not stated anything about the Holy Ghost, who was present at the baptism of Christ and of course constitutes a third entity as part of the cadre of Gods. I am still trying to grasp the Holy Ghost and why He or She is necessary. At face value the Holy Ghost appears to be necessary as a catalyst for “absorbing” critical knowledge as to the nature and personalities of God the Father, and God Jesus Christ. There is a topic I would be interested in and for which I have numerous questions.

For those of you who believe in the concept of the Trinity, please take the time to back away and look at the big picture. Where there are only a few scriptures which could lend credibility to that belief, there are numerous scriptures that point to God the Father as an individual and Jesus Christ as an individual. Can God be so emense that He can fill the Universe? His influence and love can. Can God be so tiny that He can enter into your heart? Absolutely, if one looks at it from a standpoint of spiritual influence. But this does not negate the fact that the Gods have bodies and that when the scriptures state we were created in God’s image, that is literal. If you are going to talk face-to-face with someone, they will need to have a face to talk to.

When Christ was resurrected, He was ressurected to the form of a Man. Only makes sense. That is what He looked like when he was Jehovah, the form He assummed when He was born, and when He returns at His Second Coming, it is my understanding that He will have retained His body along with the marks of His cruxification (the same marks Thomas had an opportunity to observe and touch).

Why go through the machinations to assume some form (i.e. that of a man or woman) when it is easier to accept the testimony of someone like Stephen or Christ when He stated that to see Him was to see the Father. . . If I have not already totallty tipped you over, I would like to leave you with a question. Can one have a legitimate relationship with one’s maker without understaning His and Her true nature? When Christ tells us that we will all be ressurrected, can we truly appreciate that gift without a knowledge that we are following suit ( i.e. to become like our Heavenly Father/Mother with viable bodies)?

I, too, believe there is a Trinity, but not in the way most commonly believed by mainstream Christianity, which has its roots in fourth-century Catholicism.

As far as Jesus and the Father looking the same, man was created in the likeness and image of God. In Genesis 4, Seth is said to be in the likeness and image of Adam. It is no stretch of the imagination that Jesus was also in the image and likeness of the Father.

In John 17:21 Jesus prays to the Father that the disciples may be one, even as Jesus and the Father are one. So, I tend to take that view of the oneness of God and Jesus Christ is something other than their being one substance.

The more I learn about quantum physics, the more of an understanding I have of the majesty of God and the oneness of, not only of all mankind, but of the universe.

Have you ever thought about how God can hear and understand our prayers, even when we do not say them out loud? That could only happen if we were, indeed, part of God. How else can it be explained?

People definitely do not like having their sacred cows trampled on by the facts, especially in the case of religion, such as with your example of Stephen.

The Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit, or Comforter, is a very interesting subject and one, I believe, that few people have much of a grasp on, including those Christians who most often refer to him. (I believe it is a him, it being a Priesthood sort of thing.)

The Holy Ghost has a special place in the Trinity, or Godhead, being the phrase I choose to use. Godhead is used once in the New Testament, the Trinity not ever.

I believe the Holy Ghost is the “Go-fer” (not meaning to be disrespectful) for the Father and Jesus Christ. It is through the Holy Ghost that God’s power and authority can rest on an individual or individuals, such as on the day of Pentacost. Through it are given special gifts of God, such as those briefly outlined in 1 Corrinthians 12. The Holy Ghost could not “fall” upon a person, or “enter into” him/her if He were a being of physical substance.

We know Christ was resurrected into a purified body of flesh and bones (no blood, as that is an earthly thing). Therefore, we know he has physical substance, albeit a glorified physical substance, to this day, although many like to believe otherwise, thus denying the scriptures.

I enjoyed your arguments about the true nature of the Godhead. I agree with your conclusions.

I hear a lot of talk about reincarnation, how Jesus was the reincarnation of Buddha, who was the reincarnation of some other great leader of the past, and so forth. If Jesus was all this, which body did he get resurrected in? And, if He was resurrected in his Jesus body, what did He do with all his other bodies? Do they not get a chance to be resurrected, to be damned to hell?

Cris,
You are in for a shock. . . I have nothing to add or subtract from your comments. I did like your moniker for the Holy Ghost as a “Go fer,” and take that entirely as a “label” of respect. It the context of the scriptures it does make sense that the Holy Ghost is a male. The concept of priesthood is yet another topic of considerable interest.

I would, however, like to add a point of history related to the Trinity concept. It is difficult for me to fault others for beliving this to be literal and factual. After all, it is what they are taught. If they would take the time to study the Council of Nicea, they would probably feel differently.

When the council of Nicea conveined, Constantine made it clear that anyone who did not agree with the concept of the Trinity would be anathema (no pressure there!). To my recollection, three individuals resisted and they were banished. Constantine made an edict that any writings of the three “heretics” were to be burned. Apparently fragments of those writings exist, but are not widely studied or quoted.

I think I had heard something about those three you mentioned, as it sounds vaguely familiar. Yeah, that’s really the right foot to get off on for a worldwide religion, wouldn’t you say? And that’s all that I will say at this point.🙂

This is a representative expose on the status of John the Revelator. In the concluding sentence, the author makes the statement that the translation of John is not without precedent. Apparently it applied to Enoch, Moses, and Elijah. But that begs the question as to why these individuals were spared tasting death. . .

That’s the $64,000 question. (I suppose it would be the $64 million question by now.)

We know Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus, Peter, James and John in great glory. Perhaps they, for reasons unknown, needed their physical bodies in order to perform that task, although theirs were glorified bodies of some sort, certainly not in their frail mortal frames, judging by their appearance. Beyond that, I couldn’t guess.

As for John, I suspect it had to do with the mission he was given with that little book episode in Revelation. Again, for reasons unknown, John’s mission would seem to take him to the very end of time, even until the second coming of Jesus Christ, although I don’t think you nor I would know who he really is were he to appear right before us..

Who knows? Perhaps that mission, besides preaching before kings and such, might include preaching to the lost ten tribes who are somewhere “up north”?

You have certainly put your finger on one of the Bible’s true mysteries. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

Cris,
Great to hear back from you. I believe that your focus on their mission(s) is valid. The next question becomes, what missions?

While I am not a Mormon, they contend that Elijah and Moses held/hold particular keys to the Priesthood, and that it was necessary that physical beings, by physical laying on of hands, convery or bestow the priesthood upon Joseph Smith and others as part of the process of the restoration of Christ’s gospel. I believe this was to have occurred in the first temple the Mormons built.

It follows, that for this to be representative, there had to be an interruption in the line of authority and as that occurred there were no prophets to keep doctrine on track, receive revelation to address current issues and problems, and oversee continuity of church organization (which during the time of Christ appears to have been established). For something to be restored, as Mormon’s claim, it would been necessary for it to be lost.

It is my understanding that Mormons also maintain that Peter, John, and James constituted what they would term as the first presidency of the church (and that they doubled as Apostles (note the use of the capital “A.” Apparently that same pattern is maintained in their current organization. I believe that the 12 at the time of Christ were apart from the general membership of the church.). Authority certainy does seem to be an issue relative to Christ’s church and there appears to be a thread of it through prophets over the years.

Don’t quote me on any of this. I have a set Mormon Scriptures in a box somewhere, but would have to dig them out to confirm.

So, bottom line: Enoch, Moses, Elijah, and John still have their bodies. I have a thousand questions I would like to ask any one of them. . .

Thanks for your response. Yes, I’m aware of these contentions. And, I think you hit a couple of more nails square on the head.

I have it in mind to do some writing on the subject of Church authority; how, even in the times of Paul, there was a lot of “falling away”; and the matter of the continuity of prophets.

I’ve read some interesting things on these subjects, particularly in the matter of the types of people who were being “converted” into the Church, bringing with them all manners of their traditions and practices, thus polluting the Church.

I’ve been sort of devoid of energy lately and haven’t even been keeping up with what I’m currently engaged in with the series on whether or not Jesus was married.